Turnout percentage in municipal elections. Attendance is strictly optional

The bill contained 106 pages

On March 3, 2017, a package of two bills was submitted to the State Duma, one of which, on 106 pages, prescribes changes to the rules of the game in the elections of the President of the Russian Federation, and the other (on 29 pages) - changes general rules holding elections at all levels in Russia. The authors of the documents are senators Andrei Klishas and Anatoly Shirokov, they were warmly supported by the leadership of the Central Election Commission. Judging by some signs, the real authors of these carefully worked out initiatives work in the Kremlin and the same Central Election Commission, and the package itself can be compared with a bottle of champagne broken on the side of a ship that has already been launched under the name “Russian Presidential Election Campaign 2018.”

State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin has not yet commented on the changes proposed by members of the Federation Council. But the speaker of the upper house of parliament, Valentina Matvienko, called for the adoption of these bills “as early as possible, so that they can be used already in this autumn election campaign, on the Single Voting Day, and, of course, in the presidential elections.”

The single voting day will take place on September 10, 2017. The heads of at least 14 regions will be elected, including Sevastopol, Saratov, Kirov, Novgorod, Kaliningrad, Ryazan regions, Karelia, Mordovia, as well as legislatures in 6 constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and this does not count municipal elections. Among the “liberal” innovations that increase citizens’ confidence in elections in recent days, the most often cited are the abolition of voting by absentee ballots, easier working conditions for observers, and the creation for citizens who are registered in one place and live permanently or temporarily in another, the opportunity to submit an application about the desire to vote at their location and exercise their constitutional right without any absentee ballot. But if you look at the documents submitted to the State Duma, it becomes obvious: the liberalization of the rules of the game and increasing citizens’ confidence in elections at the regional and municipal level were the last thing their authors were concerned about.

Complete cancellation absentee ballots, as it seemed to many, is not expected. The Law “On Basic Guarantees of the Electoral Rights of Citizens...”, which cannot be contradicted by any election law in the country, be it elections of the Duma, the President or a municipal assembly, will continue to allow for a “carousel” voting method. Senators do not encroach on the right of regions to introduce it with their laws in local elections. But now this right is complemented by the opportunity at the federal level and at the regional level to decide to use a different scheme: a citizen who is not in the place where he is permanently registered submits an application to be included in the voter list at his location, and he is included in the list. Information through the GAS-Elections system reaches election commissions throughout the country, and hypothetically this citizen will not be able to vote twice. The CEC will later establish “the procedure and deadlines for filing such an application and the procedure for ensuring the possibility of voting at the location.”

It is unclear whether the regions will use the new scheme and when. So far, only one thing is known for sure: this scheme will be used in the 2018 presidential elections. The law on elections of the head of state removes any mention of absentee ballots.

And at the autumn elections of 2017 in the constituent entities of the Federation, “carousel workers” are guaranteed only increased administrative responsibility: fines for this kind of case from the current ridiculous 1.5–3 thousand increase to 30 thousand rubles for the first time and up to 50 thousand rubles for a relapse.

Now - about observers... In February 2016, changes were made to the Law “On Basic Guarantees of Citizens' Electoral Rights...” to tighten the rules of observation. No more than 2 people at one polling station from each party or candidate, each observer can monitor the progress of elections only at one polling station, parties or candidates are required to submit lists of all their observers to the territorial election commission 3 days before voting day... These rules are MANDATORY for all elections levels throughout the country.

Senators propose to leave them mandatory for regional and municipal elections. Only during the elections of the head of state there will be no stupid restrictions listed above. The senators explain this by saying that during the elections of the President of the Russian Federation there will be formed large quantity polling stations than was the case, for example, in the Duma elections, “which may cause difficulties in sending observers to election commissions.” Indeed, another innovation that could potentially be used in regional elections (but only in 2018!) is the right to create new polling stations with a smaller number of voters than now...

It is obvious that the main changes proposed by the Klishas-Shirokov package work to increase turnout in the 2018 presidential elections. The Kremlin is concerned about the turnout, as a high-ranking source in the presidential administration said a week ago. There is a problem - we need to solve it.

But in those countries where the electoral legislation is stable, the concept of conducting election campaigns is built by its participants based on the existing rules. With us, it’s the other way around: first they come up with a concept for the main player, and then they reshape the electoral legislation to suit it, since an obedient parliament is always at hand. The Law “On Basic Guarantees...”, for example, has been rewritten 84 times since 2002. Over the past 5 years - 33 times.

Before the Duma elections, the Kremlin deliberately played to reduce turnout: it introduced various kinds legislative filters that make it possible to exclude candidates inconvenient for the authorities from participating in elections, the rules of the game were tightened. Even such a constitutionally dubious weapon as postponing the Duma elections from December to September was used. Turnout was low - 47.88%. The Duma, you need to understand, was chosen the way the Kremlin needs.

Now the Kremlin needs a high turnout...

By the way, the same package submitted to the State Duma proposes moving the voting date from March 4 to March 18. March 18 is the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty on the Accession of Crimea and Sevastopol to Russia. Oh, how “beautifully” you can use this date during the election campaign!

The reform of Russian electoral legislation carried out in the 2000s was aimed at ensuring that elections, whenever possible, were recognized as valid, despite either a downward trend in voter “turnout” or an increasing “protest vote” (i.e. the number of voters voting “against all”). Currently, there is no “turnout threshold” for elections in Russia. Theoretically, this means that even if only one voter comes to the polling station on voting day, and it is one of the candidates, and this voter votes for himself as a candidate, then the elections will take place and he will win with a 100% result.
It's worth going to the polls. And there are several reasons for this.

Firstly, the greater the turnout, the less opportunity there is for falsification: it is not so difficult to attribute three or four percent of the votes when only a hundred people voted; it is much more difficult to do such fraud if thousands of voters have voted.

And finally Thirdly, it is the presence of an active civic position that distinguishes modern civilized man from antisocial personality.

- From the election campaign, I see which party is spending more money for campaigning and will definitely win the elections. I wanted to vote for another party, but I don’t see the point. Should I go to the polls if my vote doesn't matter?

Practice of participation in elections recent years shows that there is nothing obvious in the Russian elections. Professionals who have been working in elections for many years will give you more than one example of how, in a particular election campaign, a candidate or party that spent enormous amounts of money on the election campaign, based on the voting results, lost to candidates whose financial component of the campaigns left much to be desired.

I won’t spend a long time looking for examples (the campaign for the election of the Head of the city of Pushchino, Moscow region in 2010; don’t be lazy, go to the Internet, all the data is there, analyze it yourself, and you will understand and see everything for yourself). Finance is a very important part of any election campaign. But, believe me, it is far from the most important. And most importantly, you need to be able to use finances wisely. So in your example, the party that spends enormous amounts of money on campaigning is far from the most obvious favorite in the election race.
It’s worth going to your polling station on election day and voting as you see fit!

I don’t like any party (not a single candidate), and there is no “against all” column. How can I express my civic position? Should I spoil the ballot or do something else?

Unfortunately, when amendments to the electoral legislation were being prepared in the mid-2000s to abolish the “against all” column, the developers of this innovation, and then the deputies who voted “for” the abolition of this column, “did not hear” reasonable arguments regarding the what in currently our society is not yet ready for such radical changes.

Interestingly, in 2004 former Chairman The Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation A.A. Veshnyakov noted that the column “against all” gives voters more options for expressing their attitude towards the elections and “may be useful for the authorities to take appropriate steps.” He stated: " high percent voting “against all” indicates some kind of anomaly in a particular region. If this column is removed, then voters will have a narrower opportunity to express their attitude towards the candidates.”

True, already in April 2005 A.A. Veshnyakov changed his point of view and came out “for” the abolition of the “against everyone” column: “There is no choice - life is simpler. Therefore, when there are 10-15 parties on the ballot, some people don’t want to think hard about who to vote for and why. It’s easier to check the box “against everyone,” the presence of which to some extent provokes such an approach,” he said.

Soon the column “against all” was excluded from Russian election legislation.
At the current stage of development of election legislation, the column “against all” is still absent from the ballot papers (a specific exception is situations in municipal elections, when during the campaign before voting day there is only one candidate left - in this case the columns “for” and “against”; a candidate wins only if more than 50% of those who took part in the voting voted “for” his candidacy).

In this situation, the only way to express your civic position is to find reasons for yourself in favor of voting for a candidate.
The fact that a ballot is damaged will not lead to anything - the ballot will be declared invalid, and this will not affect the voting results as a whole.

Why is it that when there is a preliminary count of votes, they first report some numbers, and then they change. Can such results be trusted?

The fact is that different territories vote differently. City and large sites are often different from rural or small sites. And data on preliminary results first comes from small polling stations, where it’s easier to count votes, but data comes last from the largest polling stations and the difference in votes there is significant in absolute values. Therefore, the final count data may differ from the first results. In addition, even preliminary results need to be clarified information resources election commission.

Based on the election results, many losing parties and candidates talk about fraud, but never bring real criminal cases. Who to believe?

Criminal liability for falsification exists and is applied. Whom he believes in this case is up to you, but if a candidate has reason to believe that the results were formed illegally, then he, having collected evidence with the help of observers, goes to court to cancel the election results. Or quite often, the simply losing candidate justifies his loss in this way, blaming all the blame on commission, regardless of the opinions of voters. Of course, there are cases of falsification, most of which are considered law enforcement agencies and courts.

- Is there a record of my attendance at the elections somewhere? Will it affect my future if I don't vote?

Participation in elections in Russia is free and voluntary (unlike a number of foreign countries, where voting is a citizen’s responsibility, failure to comply with which entails a fine or restriction of rights). This, in particular, means that no one has the right to force you to participate or not to participate in elections, or to control your participation in them. Your participation in elections is recorded only in the list of voters for specific elections, which, at the end of voting, is sealed and stored in a sealed form under conditions that exclude access to it, as a rule, for one year, after which it is destroyed. There is no “common database” of persons participating or not participating in elections in Russia. Thus, your non-participation in the elections will not entail any consequences for you, with the exception, of course, of the election of the relevant bodies state power and local government without your participation.

The current election legislation does not provide for a mechanism that would allow a candidate to “give away” the votes he received as a result of the vote. It follows from your question that you are most likely faced with a fairly common “technology” when, on the eve of voting day, one of the candidates uses printed campaign materials (leaflets, newspapers, etc.) or through means mass media, and sometimes simply at meetings with voters spreads the information that he “gives all the votes” in favor of another candidate. In fact, this is just one way of pre-election campaigning for one candidate - the one who “casts” votes - in support of the election of another candidate. It is impossible to challenge such a “procedure” in court due to the fact that in fact no one transfers any votes to anyone. But you won’t be able to “take back” your vote if you have already voted for one candidate or another: if you have already exercised your constitutional right to vote, and the elections are recognized as valid, and the election results are not invalidated, then it will no longer be possible to change your will in a legal way.

Our elections take place in two stages. If I voted in the first round but didn’t go to the second, will my vote decide anything?

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Federal Law of June 12, 2002 No. 67-FZ “On the basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in a referendum of citizens Russian Federation» participation of a citizen of the Russian Federation in elections and referendums is free and voluntary.
In Russia, the law does not provide for any sanctions for non-participation in elections, as is done in a number of countries (for example, in Italy, such a sanction as public censure is applied to persons who do not participate in elections; in Argentina, a voter who does not show up for elections is punished will be fined and deprived of the right to obtain a position for public service within 3 years; and in Greece, Turkey and even Austria, imprisonment was provided for non-participation in elections some time ago, albeit for a short period).

In Russia, the legislation does not provide for measures of state coercion in relation to elections, so you can, at your own discretion, make a decision: to participate in the second round (in a repeat vote, to be more precise in the wording) or not.
But at the same time, unfortunately, you must realize that the answer to your question will be negative.
The fact is that based on the results of a repeat vote, the candidate who received the vote in the voting is considered elected. larger number votes in relation to the number of votes received by the other candidate.
In other words, the very fact that you do not appear for a second vote will not affect anything at all - since the elections will still be recognized as valid, and your vote given to one or another candidate in the “first round” will have no effect on counting the vote “in the second round” will not help.

The candidate has been a member of one party for many years, and is now running for another. It is legal? Can I demand that he not be allowed to participate in the elections?

Indeed, the Federal Law of July 11, 2001 No. 95-FZ “On Political Parties” contains a rule (clause 3.1 of Article 36), according to which a political party has no right to nominate candidates for deputies, including as part of lists of candidates, and for other elective positions in government bodies and local self-government bodies of citizens of the Russian Federation who are members of other political parties.

Please note that your question does not contain enough information to make a legal decision. In practice, it is quite likely that a person long time was a member of one party, then ceased his membership in that party and joined another party. Or there may be a situation where he was a member of the party, then ceased his membership in it, and now, being a non-party member, he is running for another party. All this is in accordance with the law.

However, if you have evidence that this particular candidate at the time (on the day) of nomination from one party was registered as a member of another political party, then in this case we're talking about about a significant violation of the law: such a candidate must be denied registration, or he must be excluded from the list of candidates (if he is running as part of the list).
In such a situation, you have the right to contact the election commission, which registers this candidate, with a request to verify the facts you have indicated and take appropriate immediate response measures. (Although in practice it will be much more effective to contact the headquarters of this candidate’s opponents - the headquarters’ lawyers will check the information as soon as possible and bring the case, if the information is confirmed, to the end).

- In our city, street voting is held for parties with real ballots and ballot boxes. Is this a real election?

No. This is not a real election. If such an action was carried out on voting day and, as you say, “real” ballots and ballot boxes were used, then you are faced with a gross violation of the current election legislation and an attempt to falsify election documents and voting results.

However, taking into account precisely the fact that the situation you described too clearly contains signs of the corresponding corpus delicti provided for in Articles 142 and 142.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, then, most likely, we are talking about something slightly different. Most likely, the action you described was not carried out on voting day, but at least several days before, that is, during the official campaign period. In this case, most likely, it was not real ballots and ballot boxes that were used, but some “details” for carrying out the corresponding action.

The question of the legality of holding such an event lies in the area of ​​compliance with the legislation on meetings, rallies and other public events. However, it is also impossible to exclude the situation that an event held in such a way fully complies with the law: if the organizers notified local authorities about the event within the established time frame, if the ballots and ballot boxes are only “details” of the corresponding event and are not a “fake” of real ballots and ballot boxes for voting. In any case, final conclusions about the legality of the event you described can only be made based on the results of a thorough check of all available information.

Whose money is spent on organizing elections? Do the parties invest or do we, the taxpayers, do it?

Expenses associated with the preparation and conduct of elections of deputies of the State Duma are carried out from funds allocated for these purposes from the federal budget, for regional and local elections - from the corresponding budgets. Thus, organizing elections is a taxpayer expense.

- Who finances the elections? Is it the money of parties and candidates or voters?

It depends on what you mean by organizing elections. If the activities of election commissions are carried out, then they are fully financed from the state budget. In other words, elections are held at our expense - at the expense of taxpayers. As for the funds of political parties (electoral associations) and individual candidates, they are accumulated in special accounts of election funds at the expense of their own funds and donations from individuals and legal entities. In part, this is also our money, since parliamentary parties annually receive funds from the budget - a certain amount for each vote they receive in the elections.

Election funds can only be spent on organizing an election campaign, respectively, an electoral association or a candidate.

Subparagraph “a” of paragraph 5 of Article 58 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.

Paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.

Is it possible to recount the ballots or are they counted only once by the precinct election commission?

Ballots can be recounted by the precinct election commission itself if the results of the initial count do not agree with the number of ballots issued, invalid ballots and ballots placed in ballot boxes. A manual recount is also possible using ballot processing complexes (POIB) installed on voting boxes in the event of such a discrepancy.

In addition, the decision to recount votes can be made by a higher commission if, as a result of checking the protocol on the voting results of the precinct commission, inconsistencies and errors are identified. A recount of votes in this case can be carried out either by the precinct commission itself or directly by a higher one.

A recount is also possible at the initiative of a precinct commission, a higher commission and a court if significant violations of electoral legislation are detected during elections. In practice, only a few times it was possible to initiate the issue of recounting ballots in the courts. And every time when delivering ballots to the court, I had to deal with their absolutely unfair storage. There were also cases when ballots were destroyed.

Advice:Since the main falsifications occur precisely during the counting of votes, drawing up and signing of the protocol at polling stations, it is always easier and more effective to insist on a recount of ballots in the precinct commission than to postpone this procedure for the indefinite future, which greatly reduces the likelihood of a recount.

- Who can be present during the counting of votes, except for commission members and observers?

In addition to commission members and observers, only the following may be present during the counting of votes:

1) members of higher commissions and employees of their apparatus;

2) candidates (registered by this or a higher commission) or their proxies;

3) authorized representatives or proxies of an electoral association (the list of candidates of which is registered by this or a higher commission) or a candidate from the list of this association;

4) representatives of the media (but, as a rule, they try to get rid of them by any means).

Advice: Strict compliance with election legislation will be ensured with to a greater extent likelihood if a larger number of active citizens control the vote count. Therefore, you need not to be lazy and become observers, having received the appropriate powers from the participants in the election process.

Clause 1 of Article 30 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.

Paragraph 22 of Article 68 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.

Subparagraph “e” of paragraph 24 of Article 68 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.

Clause 9 of Article 69 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.

Clauses 1 and 1.2 of Article 77 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees...”.

Increasingly, calls are heard to ignore the future elections of deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation on December 4, 2011, or to spoil the ballot, thereby expressing their distrust of the procedure and the election organizers. Will this affect the voting results?

It will affect, but not at all in the way you expect. The voter turnout threshold for all elections was abolished back in 2006; elections will be recognized as valid even if only one person takes part in them. No one will notice your absence - moreover, they will even be glad to see you, because the ballot intended for you will remain blank, it can be filled out for you. As a result, your vote, against your will, will go to the party that has greater influence on the election commission, which will become your contribution, including, indirectly, to the falsification of elections.

There is no use in damaging ballots. Your distrust of the elections and their organizers will remain only yours. Deputy portfolios will be distributed only among parties that received 7 or more percent of the votes of voters participating in the voting. The remaining votes and invalid ballots will, in fact, be distributed among the winning parties, in proportion to their results. If there is one favorite among the parties, you can be almost sure that your vote will still be cast for it, again against your will.

Therefore, if you do not want the fate of your vote to be determined for you - to do exactly what is why you already do not trust future elections - come to the polling station and vote for the party closest to your beliefs.

- Is taking an absentee ballot the same as going to the polling station on voting day?

Taking an absentee certificate entails exclusion of the voter from the list of voters at the polling station at his place of residence, and if he does not use it, exclusion from the list of voters for this election altogether. While coming to the polling station on voting day involves receiving a ballot and voting.

- Will spoiled ballots be redistributed in favor of the party that receives the majority of votes?

- Spoiled, or, in legal terms, invalid ballots, are not redistributed by themselves. They are not taken into account when distributing mandates to the State Duma. Thus, we can say that the votes of voters who spoiled the ballot are distributed among the parties entering the Duma in proportion to the number of votes received.

- There are rumors that the Russian Central Election Commission is falsifying the election results in favor of the ruling party. Tell me, is there a set of tools for public monitoring of the election process sufficient for everyone who has access to the Internet, if desired, to make sure that:
at all polling stations elections are held in accordance with the regulations of the Central Election Commission,
all polling stations are real objects,
all voters are real personalities and vote with their own hands,
the results for each site are published in the media,
and finally, do the observed results correspond to the published results?

Currently, by decision of the Central Election Commission of Russia, a program is being implemented for online broadcasting from the voting premises of some polling stations. Their list and links to the broadcast can be found on the website of the election commission of the corresponding constituent entity of the Russian Federation. I think that over time the number of areas equipped with cameras will increase.

In addition, you also have the opportunity to familiarize yourself with the data entered into the protocol of each precinct election commission on the website of the election commission of the corresponding constituent entity of the Russian Federation. Data from each polling station is entered by system administrators of the State Automated System “Elections” and is made available online on the Internet for public access.
Check the reality of all voters, the correctness of the preparation of the PEC protocols (entering into it the data corresponding to real results) observers from each of the political parties participating in the elections can currently

In the coming 2018, an event is expected in Russia that will determine the fate of the country in the next six years - the election of the President of the Russian Federation. The official election date is set for March 18, 2018. However, political scientists and experts are already trying to predict the election results, which will affect the economy and political situation in the country. Independent research will help predict not only the outcome of the vote, but also the turnout in the 2018 elections in the regions of Russia.

Over the past ten years, the turnout rate has been on a downward trend. Therefore, it is not difficult for experts to predict the situation. Such indicators allow us to anticipate dynamics that are expected to move in the same direction. The presence of citizens at polling stations on single voting day can be influenced by many factors. Some of these factors are already well known. However, the government is trying to do everything possible to increase turnout.

Overall percentage of voter turnout in Russia

Today, socio-political stability in the Russian Federation is heterogeneous, therefore the average turnout of Russian citizens at polling stations does not reflect the actual activity of the people in different regions states. But these parameters directly affect the outcome of the election of the head of the Russian Federation.

The turnout threshold was abolished back in 2006. Low voter turnout increases the likelihood of speculation and various kinds of provocations.

According to preliminary forecasts regarding the turnout of the electorate on the day of the single vote, compiled by such large and well-known analytical companies as Levada-Center and St. Petersburg Politics, it was possible to compile average voter turnout indicators for the upcoming presidential elections in the Russian Federation. Based on the results of surveys among the population in different regions of the country, it turned out that on voting day 58% of the population plan to come to the polling station. In accordance with the indicators that analysts were able to obtain, citizens’ intentions regarding the upcoming elections were distributed as follows:

30% – perhaps they will come to the polling station on voting day,

20% – while they doubt that they will vote,

19% – they don’t plan to go to the polling station at all on voting day.

It was those citizens who would definitely come to vote and those citizens who might vote that made up that part of the voters who had already decided on their civic position. These are the first two categories of citizens in the list above. The other two categories can be influenced through various mechanisms that may influence their final decision.

From the practice of previous years, analysts have concluded that actual voter turnout is usually lower than predicted voter turnout. This happens because in last moment people who planned to vote, for one reason or another, change their decision, renounce their right to vote and their expression of will.

At the same time, the All-Russian Research Center public opinion gave more optimistic results. As a result of their research, it turned out that approximately 70% of the population with the right to vote would vote for the chosen candidate.

Percentage of voter turnout by regions of Russia

Based on the results of surveys and studies by the same analytical companies, voter turnout in 2018 in the regions of the country became known:

Tyumen and Tuva - almost 100% of the population,

Republic of Dagestan – 99.20% of the population,

Kemerovo region – 99.18% of the population,

Chechen Republic – 95.9% of the population.

Thus, it turned out that maximum amount voters are expected in Tyumen and Tuva. There is also high activity in Yamalo-Nenets District, Karachay-Cherkess Republic, Ingushetia, North Ossetia and Tatarstan.

The turnout will be low in Novosibirsk, Irkutsk, Tomsk, Novgorodsk, Kostroma region, Trans-Baikal Territory, where a very small percentage of voters will vote in the presidential elections in 2018.

Also to regions with low percentage turnouts include the Astrakhan region, where only 37.3% of citizens will go to the polling station and St. Petersburg, where 37% of citizens will go to vote. The capital of Russia occupies the very last position in this ranking. In Moscow, only 33.15% of the population will vote, which is the lowest turnout in the 2018 Russian presidential elections among all regions of the country.

Analysts were unable to predict data for Crimea because there was too little information. There was only one federal election campaign in this region - the Duma, which took place in the fall of 2016. This region also did not show any records then. In Crimea, turnout was only 49%.

Of course there is no doubt that this statistic may change. The closer we get to the election date, the more changes are expected in these indicators. The opinion of the population will undoubtedly be influenced by the candidates' election campaign, which has only recently started. Candidates will use different political technologies. Accordingly, citizens who previously did not want to vote in the presidential elections in Russia, closer to the elections, will most likely change their decision and increase the number of voters.

The highest voter turnout rates were recorded in Russia in 1991. Then the turnout in the elections was 77% Russian citizens with voting rights. The lowest figures were in 2004 - 64.4% of citizens took part in the elections. In 2008, the turnout was 70%, in 2012 – 65.3%.

Projected voter turnout rates for 2018 are lower than presidential elections in other countries. For example, during the elections in France (voting in 2 stages), the turnout was 77.8 and 74.5%. In Iran, the turnout was 73%. IN South Korea– 77%. However, there are also lower indicators, for example, during the presidential elections in Serbia the turnout was 54.5%, in Chile - 46.7%, in Slovenia - 44%.

According to expert Dmitry Oreshkin, according to the results of surveys, out of 110 million citizens, only 64 million will come to vote, a quarter of them are people who have already given a positive answer regarding voting, but they do not want to go to the polls. Accordingly, they need to be subtracted from 64 million, but added to this number 12 million people who will be among those who voted, as “drawn”. Thus, according to the expert’s calculations, 60 million Russians (55-60%) will attend the elections and the expert sees no reason to exceed this threshold. After all, the main reason for such low parameters is the lack of intrigue, as many political strategists believe: “The Crimean syndrome is already ending, the feeling of uncertainty is increasing, the material level is decreasing. All this reduces the willingness of citizens to go to the polls.”

According to expert Dmitry Badovsky, more realistic indicators can be measured no earlier than February, because by this time the category of citizens who will definitely vote will exceed 40%: “The overall projected turnout will rise to 57-60%, but you need to understand that before There is still time left for the end of the campaign.”

The Kremlin is today concerned about such low indicators in a number of regions identified as a result of surveys conducted by analytical companies. Therefore, the authorities seriously thought about what technologies to choose and what approach should be taken to the population in order to increase the number of people willing to take part in future fate countries.

Opinions of politicians and experts on low turnout

Presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov commented on the results of surveys by analytical companies. He said that the Kremlin does not intend to evaluate the work of regional heads by the level of turnout in the presidential elections: “That would be unlawful and incorrect. The Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation is responsible for informing citizens in the regions about the importance of each vote.”

Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration Sergei Kiriyenko, who oversees domestic policy issues, gave the heads of regions a strict instruction - to avoid “cheating” votes and related quarrels and scandals.

Increasing turnout should occur without using administrative resources. At the end of autumn 2017, all vice-governors responsible for domestic policy in the regions, were collected at a seminar in Moscow. There they were given a task - on March 18, 2018, they must create the most festive mood possible. People should be attracted through various types of events: sports, cultural, and so on. During the events, surveys of residents about the fate of their regions must be conducted.

According to the head of the expert group, Konstantin Kalachev, the turnout should be maximum. This can be achieved in different ways. There are regions where all events are held as a holiday and folk festival, where elections are a form of leisure for the people, and participation in cultural events- This is a mandatory tradition.

Some regional heads took these guidelines literally. Thus, in the Komi Republic they wanted to hold a local referendum on March 18 on moving the capital from Syktyvkar to Ukhta. In Sevastopol, they planned to hold a referendum on the choice of the flag and coat of arms of the city. However, during the process of collecting signatures, these options were rejected. Only one referendum was approved in the Volgograd region, where residents will decide on the issue of moving local time forward 1 hour ( Volgograd region located in the same time zone as Moscow).

As for the intrigue, today the CEC was notified of the desire to take part by 33 candidates, of which 15 are self-nominated. Of these, 11 people were rejected for one reason or another. In the meantime, only Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who managed to submit documents to the CEC first, was registered. He submitted the documents on December 22. The party has already transferred 200 million rubles to his fund. The maximum amount is 400 million rubles, of which only 10% can be transferred by the candidate independently. The party that nominated the candidate can contribute a maximum of 50% of the limit. Voluntary transfers by Russians can reach a maximum of only 1.5%, and voluntary donations from legal entities – 7%.

How the authorities will raise voter turnout rates

It is possible that the authorities of regions where low rates have been identified today will take appropriate measures to ensure high voter turnout. For example, various technologies may be introduced. This includes conducting explanatory activities, the purpose of which is to convey to citizens the importance of the upcoming event and the social activity of each citizen. A friendly, festive atmosphere must be ensured at polling stations. Will be held preparatory activities to increase the number of citizens' turnout. For example, some of the people who did not vote will be technically eliminated by a detailed study of the lists at polling stations. That is, those who went abroad, those who recently changed their citizenship, those who died and other citizens not registered at these addresses will be excluded. In other words, the lists " dead souls" In some regions of the country their number reaches 10% of voters.

Extending the duration of the work of the precinct commission by twenty days may also contribute to more active voting. In 2018, precinct commissions will work for 30 days, which will allow for the full targeted distribution of invitations, as well as including all clarifications in the preliminary lists.

Calls for protest and boycott created by opposition members can also affect voter turnout rates. Due to strong pressure and the imposition of someone else's political will, Russian citizens may listen and refuse to express their will on voting day. These calls may lead to some of the citizens giving up their own right to vote, and without realizing it, entrusting their future to people who lack the trust of the electorate.

But be that as it may, the greater the turnout and the percentage of voters on the day of the single vote, the greater the number of citizens will show their social activity. Therefore, preliminary data are very eloquent in terms of public consciousness and political interest of citizens in the future of their country.

Measures to increase voter turnout

In 2017, the government took some measures aimed at increasing the turnout of citizens at polling stations on voting day, March 18, 2018.

This includes an amendment to the law “On the elections of the President of the Russian Federation”. The main change is the absence of absentee ballots. This means that a person can vote in any polling station, regardless of whether he is registered at this address or simply lives. The “mobile voter” system is aimed at increasing turnout due to convenience for citizens. Now, in order to vote at the nearest polling station, a citizen must simply submit an application through State Services.

To increase the percentage of citizen turnout, measures have also been taken regarding people vacationing or living abroad. Today, millions of Russian citizens live outside the Russian Federation and also have the right to vote. The Central Election Commission of Russia will increase the turnout of citizens abroad due to the arrival of the election commission to places of increased activity of Russians. For example, the CEC will send representatives of participating candidates for the post of head of state to polling stations in other countries. But there are some nuances here too. Many Russians staying outside Russia are in small populated areas and not everyone has the opportunity to come to Big City in order to vote. To solve this problem, the CEC will send employees to areas populated by Russian citizens so that they can vote. In this way, more votes can be collected, which will significantly affect the voting result.

In 2018, the Central Election Commission plans to attract several million Russians permanently or temporarily staying outside Russia to participate in the presidential elections. In total, it is planned to open 360 polling stations abroad. In this case, voting is also possible without absentee ballots.

Experts believe that due to the abolition of absentee ballots, voter turnout will increase by five million. On last elections head of state in 2012, 1,600,046 Russians voted using absentee ballots. This is a small indicator, however, many Russians would like to vote, but were not at their place of permanent registration that day. Many citizens do not want to deal with absentee ballots at all, because in order to receive them, you need to spend a lot of time. Simplification of “paper” issues will directly affect the increase in voter turnout in 2018.

Measures have also been taken to ensure fair elections. Polling stations will be equipped with video cameras, and the processes taking place at polling stations can be monitored online.

Measures have been developed aimed at increasing the legitimacy of elections in Russia. The corresponding bill prepared by the deputy Margarita Svergunova, submitted to the State Duma.

It is proposed to legislatively establish a minimum threshold for voter turnout - at least 50% of voters included in the voter lists for the elections of the President of the Russian Federation, State Duma deputies, as well as for elections to government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. This indicator is planned to be taken into account when the elections are declared invalid. An exception is provided for elections to local government bodies.

Let us recall that previously elections were declared invalid if less than 20% of the number of voters included in the voter lists took part in them. At the same time, the specified minimum percentage could be raised for elections in federal authorities state authorities, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and reduced for the election of deputies of representative bodies of municipalities. The law of a subject of the Russian Federation allowed to provide that the minimum percentage of the number of voters for recognition of elections of deputies of representative bodies municipality is not established as having taken place. Also, the minimum turnout threshold was in effect for the elections of the President of the Russian Federation, which were declared invalid if less than half of the voters included in the voter lists at the end of voting took part in them. For elections of State Duma Deputies, the voter turnout threshold was 25%. However, the corresponding norms were then excluded.

According to the author of the initiative, today the absence of a threshold for voter turnout during elections to government bodies calls into question the legitimacy of elected bodies elected in elections with the participation of less than half of the voters included in the voter lists.

Svergunova believes that the introduction of the proposed norms will make it possible to form government bodies taking into account the opinions of the majority of voters, which will give greater legitimacy to elected bodies, helping to strengthen power throughout the country as a whole. Also, the implementation of the bill will increase the responsibility of election commissions, in particular, in informing voters about elections, active suffrage, active citizenship, etc.

Last week, the State Duma adopted in the second reading another package of amendments to the electoral legislation. Like many other legislative initiatives over the past five years, the new document complicates election rules for opponents of the current government and simplifies them for the Kremlin.

In addition to opposition-minded voters, the victims of these amendments will be opposition candidates and parties, for which United Russia has come up with a number of new grounds for refusing registration. Although the official motive for these innovations was to strengthen the fight against extremism, the definition of “extremists” will most easily include candidates who are not sufficiently loyal to the current government.
Thus, registration will be denied to politicians who “during the term of office of a state authority or local government” (that is, for example, in the case of the State Duma - within four years before the next elections) made “calls for the commission of acts defined as extremist activity ". The list of such acts was significantly expanded last summer (see “Vlast” No. 29 of July 24), and if you wish, you can write down as extremists, say, communists blocking the regional administration building in protest against the monetization of benefits (“obstructing the activities of government bodies and their officials"), or democrats accusing Vladimir Putin of being responsible for the deaths of hostages in Beslan and the theater center on Dubrovka ("public slander against a person holding a public office, combined with accusing this person of committing acts of an extremist nature") . Moreover, the right to be elected will be denied even to those potential candidates who received administrative rather than criminal penalties for their “extremist acts.”
By the way, among the amendments preliminarily approved by the relevant State Duma committee on state construction, there was an even stricter rule allowing for the refusal of registration to candidates who are in custody on charges of extremist crimes. This would allow the authorities to quickly exclude disloyal politicians from elections by bringing the necessary charges against them and choosing the appropriate preventive measure. But after representatives of the Central Election Commission at a meeting of the relevant committee of the State Duma stated that this clause contradicts the Constitution (it prohibits running for any government bodies only by persons in prison due to a court verdict that has entered into force), this norm migrated from the table of recommended acceptance of amendments to the rejected table.
At the request of the CEC, another provision of the bill was also changed, which allowed candidates to be denied registration for incomplete information about themselves. Firstly, the law prescribed an exhaustive list of information that a candidate must submit to the election commission when nominated, while the draft amendment allowed election commissions to interpret the term “incomplete information” at their own discretion. And secondly, the Duma obliged election commissions to notify candidates about shortcomings found in their documents at least three days before the expected registration date, so that they have time to make the necessary changes. True, representatives of the opposition immediately pointed out that two days (clarifications must be made no later than a day before possible registration) are clearly not enough if we are talking about, say, elections to the State Duma, in which deputies are elected from Kaliningrad to Primorye.

However, opposition candidates will have a chance to “get laid off” even after registration, if they violate the updated rules of election campaigning. The main one of these rules will be the ban on “denigrating” competitors during campaigning on television. The new law includes prohibited actions, in particular, “disseminating calls to vote against a candidate,” “describing possible negative consequences if a candidate is elected,” “disseminating information that clearly predominates information about a candidate combined with negative comments,” or "information that contributes to the creation of a negative attitude of voters towards the candidate."
In other words, after these amendments come into force, candidates and parties will be allowed to talk about their opponents as dead - either good or nothing. After all, any mention of a competitor’s shortcomings may be considered a violation of the above-mentioned prohibition, which may be punishable by deprivation of registration. Consequently, the entire pre-election competition between candidates and parties (including during their debates on live television, for which the Central Election Commission especially advocates) will ultimately come down to an exchange of pleasantries, and the one who praises himself better than others will win. But in this case, future candidates are unlikely to count on the sincere interest of ordinary Russian television viewers, to whom state television channels will offer such “debates” instead of their favorite concerts and TV series.
Dmitry Kamyshev